1 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant asked the public authority to reveal whether a named company had ever submitted an application to the authority for permission to use the title “Royal”, a protected Royal title granted by the Sovereign acting on the advice of Her Ministers. The public authority decided that it was excluded from its duty to confirm or deny whether it held any information within the scope of the request by virtue of the exclusion contained at section 37(2) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded that the public authority was entitled to rely on the exclusion contained at section 37(2) FOIA. No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0204 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 37
View Cabinet Office
1 Aug 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) for correspondence and records it held about certain ministerial meetings with contractors which took place in early 2015. The MOD provided the complainant with some of the information it held but withheld further information on the basis of the exemptions contained at sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 36(2)(c) (effective conduct of public affairs), 43(2) (commercial interests), 26(1)(b) (defence) and 40(2) (personal data). The Commissioner is satisfied that the withheld information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining these exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Ministry of Defence
1 Aug 2016Complaint partially upheldEnvironmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested all emails that contained the word “Moats”. Oxfordshire County Council disclosed information. The complainant explained that as Oxfordshire County Council initially stated that it had disclosed all of the requested information but during the internal review found another draft email, he does not believe it has disclosed everything to him. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the balance of probabilities, Oxfordshire County Council does not hold any further information. He therefore does not consider that there has been a breach of regulation 12(4)(a) (Information held at the time of a request) or regulation 11 (Representations and reconsideration) of the EIR. However, he does consider that Oxfordshire County Council has breached regulations 3 (Application) and 5 (Duty to make available environmental information on request) of the EIR. The Commissioner does not require Oxfordshire City Council to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: EIR 11; EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 3; EIR 5
View Oxfordshire County Council
28 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to an error made in the calculations for a new model for police funding. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemption provided by section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Home Office cited section 35(1)(a) correctly so it was not obliged to disclose the requested information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Home Office
28 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about whether DNA evidence held by the police in the case of the murder of Mrs Georgina Edmonds related only to a single specific individual or could possibly relate to any other individuals who may also have had some connection with the crime. The Commissioner decided that, on an objective reading, the request was open to more than one interpretation. The Commissioner’s approach to section 1(3) FOIA is that a public authority must seek clarification of a request whose meaning is not clear or is open to more than one objective reading. The police did not clarify with the complainant which interpretation he had intended. Accordingly the Commissioner decided that the police had not complied with section 16(1) FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take the following step to ensure compliance with the legislation: to clarify with the complainant exactly what information it was that he wished to receive. This decision notice is current
Exemptions cited: FOI 16
28 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information regarding the proposed development of sports stadia in Northern Ireland. The Department for Communities refused the request in reliance on the exemption at section 35(1)(b) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is environmental information within the meaning of regulation 2(1)(c) of the EIR. Therefore the request ought to have been handled under the EIR rather than the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to reconsider the request under the provisions of the EIR and issue a fresh response to the complainant. To the extent that the public authority withholds any of the requested information it should issue a refusal notice that complies with regulation 14 of the EIR.
Exemptions cited: EIR 14; EIR 2(1)
28 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested a list of all transaction reports available to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (‘HMCTS’) Finance from the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’). The request was refused on cost grounds in accordance with section 12 of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MOJ was correct to rely on section 12 of FOIA. She does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to County Court hearings involving a named claimant. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing section 32 (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on sections 32(1)(a) and (c) to withhold the requested information. She does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
28 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to County Court hearings involving a named claimant. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to provide the requested information citing section 32 (court records) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the MoJ was entitled to rely on sections 32(1)(a) and (c) to withhold the requested information. She does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 32
View Ministry of Justice
27 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a number of requests for information relating to a dispute between a training service provider and Calderdale College (the College) which culminated in legal proceedings. The College has provided some information but refused to disclose the remainder. The Commissioner has found that a considerable part of the requested information is the personal data of the complainant and should be considered under the Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA) and not FOIA. She has therefore not considered further the personal data as part of this notice. With regard to the College’s position under FOIA, the Commissioner has decided that the ‘vexatious requests’ (section 14(1)) exclusion does not apply and the ‘information contained in court records’ (section 32(1)) and ‘legal professional privilege’ (section 42(1)) exemptions to disclosure are not engaged. She has though found that the ‘third party personal data’ (section 40(2)) does apply to some elements of the withheld information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14; FOI 32; FOI 42
27 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about breaches of the Working Time Regulations. The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) provided most of the information within the scope of the request but refused to provide the names of the employers, citing the exemption section 41 (information provided in confidence) of the FOIA. The Information Commissioner’s decision is that the requested information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 41 of the FOIA. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 41
View Health and Safety Executive
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against a named Deputy District Judge. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, citing sections 32(3) (court records), 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 44(2). His decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
26 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested on behalf of his mother information relating his mother’s healthcare via a valid power of attorney. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG (the CCG) incorrectly applied section 40(2) of the FOIA to the requested information. However, the Commissioner finds that the information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of section 40(1) of the FOIA. This is because essentially the information being requested in the context of a power of attorney was the personal data of the applicant. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 40
View Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Integrated Care System
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about internal or external legal advice concerning an Environmental Impact Assessment with regard to a particular development (Brightwells). Waverley Borough Council (‘the Council’) handled the request under the FOIA. It said that all the relevant information it holds is already accessible to the complainant and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 21(1) of the FOIA. It says that it holds no further information. The Commissioner has decided that the request should have been considered by the Council under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and concluded that: under regulation 6(1)(b) the Council is not obliged to provide the relevant information that it holds as this information is already publicly available and easily accessible to the complainant in another form or format; and that with reference to regulation 12(4)(a), at the time of the request the Council held no further relevant information. The Commissioner do
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(a); EIR 6(1)(b)
View Waverley Borough Council
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information about a planning matter. City of York Council (‘the Council’) withheld all the information that it holds under regulation 12(4)(d)(material still in the course of completion). During the Commissioner’s investigation, the Council released some of the requested information to the complainant. It continues to withhold some of the information which it has now said is also excepted from disclosure under regulations 12(3) (third person personal data); 12(5)(b)(course of justice); 12(5)(c)(intellectual property rights) and 12(5)(f)(not in the interests of the person who provided the information). The Commissioner’s decision is that, at the time of the request, the Council correctly applied regulation 12(4)(d) to the requested information and that the public interest favoured withholding this information. The Commissioner does not require the Council to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(4)(d)
View York City Council
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Cabinet Office for the submissions received by the Holocaust Commission as a result of its national call for evidence. The Cabinet Office withheld the submissions on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: section 36 (effective conduct of public affairs), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data) and 41 (information provided in confidence). The Commissioner has concluded that the submissions are exempt from disclosure on the basis of the sections 36(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and that in all of the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemptions.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Cabinet Office
26 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) seeking information about the consultation announced in 2011 to extend the Freedom of Information Act to awarding bodies. The MoJ withheld the requested information on the basis of sections 35(1)(a), 35(1)(b) and 40(2) of FOIA. Although the complainant submitted his request to the Ministry of Justice, following the move of policy responsibility for FOI to the Cabinet Office after the request, the Commissioner is satisfied that the Cabinet Office is the appropriate public authority upon which to serve this decision notice. The Commissioner has concluded that all of the withheld information falls within the scope of section 35(1)(a) and that for the majority of the information the public interest favours maintaining this exemption. However, for the remainder of the information the Commissioner has concluded that the public interest favours disclosing the information.
Exemptions cited: FOI 35
View Cabinet Office
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested minutes of meetings at which ministers or officials from the Department of Health (DoH) provided oral evidence to the Doctors and Dentists Remuneration Board (DDRB). The Office of Manpower Economics (OME) which provides secretariat services to the DDRB refused the request under section 36(2)(b)(ii) – inhibition to the free and frank exchange of views and section 36(2)(c) – prejudice to the conduct of public affairs. The Commissioner’s decision is that the OME is entitled to rely on section 36(2)(b)(ii) to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any further action in respect of this request. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0183 dismissed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Office of Manpower Economics
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Government Legal Department (GLD) seeking information about the legal costs incurred by the government in relation to the proceedings in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal brought by Abdulhakim Belhaj. The GLD argued that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under FOIA on the basis of section 23(1) (security bodies). The Commissioner has concluded that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of this exemption.
Exemptions cited: FOI 23
View Government Legal Department
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for information it held about meetings and correspondence between it and Shell which involved Sean Winnett, Shell’s Head of UK Government Relations. The FCO disclosed the information it held to the complainant but made a number of redactions on the basis of the exemptions contained at the following sections of FOIA: section 27(1) (international relations), 29 (economy), 38 (health and safety), 40 (personal data), 41 (information provided in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests). The Commissioner has concluded that the redacted information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of sections 27(1), 41(1) and 43(2).
Exemptions cited: FOI 27; FOI 41; FOI 43
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against a named Circuit Judge. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, citing sections 32(3) (court records), 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 44(2). His decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
26 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to complaints made against a named District Judge. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) refused to confirm or deny whether the information was held, citing sections 32(3) (court records), 40(5) (personal information) and 44(2) (prohibitions on disclosure) of FOIA. The Commissioner has investigated the MoJ’s application of section 44(2). His decision is that the MoJ has correctly applied that exemption on the basis that confirmation or denial was prohibited by section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA). He requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 44
View Ministry of Justice
25 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to any meetings between the former Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health and Jeremy Hunt or senior civil servants about the report on doctors pay. The Department of Health identified a number of diary entries, narrative information and three notes of meetings which were relevant to the request but considered this information exempt on the basis of section 35(1)(a), 35(1)(d) and 40(2) where the information was the names of junior staff. The Commissioner’s decision is that the DoH has correctly applied section 35(1)(a) to withhold the three notes of meetings but that the public interest in the narrative of the meetings and the diary entries of the meetings favours disclosure. He also finds that the public interest in section 35(1)(d) favours disclosure in relation to this information. The Commissioner finds that section 40(2) does provide a basis for withholding some of the names from the narrative information and the diary e
Exemptions cited: FOI 35; FOI 40
View Department of Health and Social Care
25 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant made requests for information relating to private equity funds. The City of Wolverhampton Council (the Council) refused to comply with the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that the request was not vexatious and so the Council has incorrectly relied on the vexatious provision at section 14(1) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to provide to the complainant a fresh response to his request that does not rely on section 14(1).
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Wolverhampton City Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information in relation to work place bullying. The council initially sought to refuse the request but subsequently provided the information following its internal review. The Commissioner’s decision is that the council has breached section 10(1) of the FOIA as it took over the required 20 working days to provide the requested information. As the council has now provided the information, the Commissioner does not require it to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View Newcastle City Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested audio recordings of Hemingbrough Parish Council meetings. The Commissioner’s decision is that Hemingbrough Parish Council breached section 1(1)(a) and 1(1)(b) of the FOIA by not informing the complainant that the requested information was held and not communicating the requested information to the complainant. However, as the requested information has since been destroyed, the Commissioner cannot order any steps requiring Hemingbrough Parish Council to comply with section 1 of the FOIA in this case. Therefore he requires no further action to be taken in respect of this request.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
25 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information about the number of complaints made in relation to courts losing correspondence. Following clarification of the request, the Ministry of Justice (the ‘MOJ’) advised that the requested information is not held. During the Commissioner’s investigation, the MOJ revised its position to also rely on section 12, the cost exclusion of FOIA. The Commissioner’s decision is that, on the civil balance of probabilities, no electronic information is held. He also finds that the MOJ was correct to rely on section 12 in respect of any manually held information. However, as the MOJ failed to respond to the clarified request within 20 working days, it breached section 10(1) of FOIA. The Commissioner does not require the MOJ to take any remedial steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 10; FOI 12
View Ministry of Justice
25 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information regarding complaints of harassment and bullying at work. The Commissioner’s decision is that Nottinghamshire County Council has not provided sufficient reasons for applying the exemption where the cost of compliance exceeds the appropriate limit at section 12 of the FOIA. He has also decided that Nottinghamshire County Council did not provide adequate advice and assistance under section 16 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to issue a fresh response under the FOIA without relying on section 12 of the FOIA, providing appropriate advice and assistance if necessary.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12; FOI 16
View Nottinghamshire County Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to the outsourcing of pensions administration by Staffordshire Police. In relation to some parts of the request Staffordshire Police disclosed information and provided explanations, but the complainant disputed whether Staffordshire Police had disclosed all information it held falling within the scope of those requests. Staffordshire Police refused one part of the request as vexatious under section 14(1) of the FOIA. In relation to those parts of the request where the complainant disputes whether Staffordshire Police identified all relevant information it holds, the Commissioner finds that it did identify all the relevant information and so complied with section 1(1)(a). In relation to the request where section 14(1) was cited, the Commissioner finds that this request was vexatious and so Staffordshire Police was not obliged to comply with it. Staffordshire Police is not required to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1; FOI 14
View Staffordshire Police
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a series of requests to the University of Durham (the University) for information and data relating to the 11+ transfer tests administered by the Centre for Evaluation & Monitoring (CEM), a research group within the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University. The Commissioner has only been required to consider the University’s response to one request however, which asked for the correct answers for a particular section of an exam paper. The University refused to comply with this request under the ‘commercial interests’ (section 43(2)) exemption to disclosure in FOIA. The Commissioner has found that section 43(2) of FOIA is engaged and has decided that in all the circumstances the public interest in disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in favour of maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner does not therefore require the University to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 43
View University of Durham
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from Haringey Council (“the Council”) for confirmation as to whether a standard form was sent to all other motorists that appealed a traffic penalty charge notice from a specific camera in December 2015 and January 2016. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council has correctly applied section 14 of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0184 allowed.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Haringey Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested figures relating to the number of Bridgend County Borough Council (‘BCBC’) employees who had voluntarily retired from 1 April 2014. She also requested information about BCBC’s Discretions Policy. Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council (‘the Council’) disclosed some information and stated other information was not held. The Commissioner is satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, the Council does not hold any further recorded information. The Commissioner does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information relating to various planning applications which were approved by Horsham District Council. Most of the information sought by the complainant is available to him via the Council’s planning portal or has been provided to him. A small amount of information, comprised of an email and legal advice, has been withheld from the complainant on the grounds that legal professional privilege attaches to it. The Council has therefore applied the exception to disclosure provided by Regulation 12(5)(b) of the EIR. The Commissioner’s decision is that Horsham District Council has properly applied Regulation 12(5)(b) to the information it is withholding. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: EIR 12(5)(b)
View Horsham District Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested information from Oxford City Council (“the Council”) about the Unlawfully Moored Boats Enforcement Group (“UMBEG”). The Council stated that it did not hold the requested information. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did hold the requested information and that it breached regulation 5(1) of the EIR by failing to make it available on request. He also found that by failing to respond within the statutory timeframe it breached regulation 5(2) and that by failing to provide an internal review it breached regulations 11(3) and 11(4).The Commissioner requires the Council to locate all relevant information held in relation to each limb of the complainant’s request and to issue a fresh response that complies with regulation 5(1), or issue a valid refusal notice under regulation 14(1).
Exemptions cited: EIR 11(3); EIR 11(4); EIR 5(1); EIR 5(2)
View Oxford City Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (‘Cafcass’) information relating to the costs of a particular court case hearing. The Commissioner’s decision is that Cafcass does not hold any information that falls within the request. Therefore, he does not require Cafcass to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested recorded information which concerns his claim against the Gloucester County Council for damage to his vehicle whilst driving on one of the Council’s roads. The Commissioner’s decision is that Gloucestershire County Council is entitled to withhold a chain of emails in reliance on section 36(2)(b)(ii) of the FOIA. The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Gloucestershire County Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information contained in Lincolnshire County Council’s risk registers. Initially the Council refused to comply with the complainant’s request in reliance on section 36 of the FOIA. Latterly the Council determined that it should instead rely on section 14(1) of the FOIA on the grounds that it would be vexatious to comply with the complainant’s request. The Commissioner’s decision is that Lincolnshire County Council has properly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA. In view of this decision, the Commissioner has not found it necessary to consider the Council’s previous position regarding its application of section 36.The Commissioner requires the public authority to take no further action in this matter.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Lincolnshire County Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant has requested copies of correspondence between the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) about the Door-Drop Preference Service scheme, covering the period from 7 May 2012 to 31 May 2014. Defra provided a limited number of records in response to the request, with information relating to some individuals redacted in accordance with the ‘third party personal data’ (regulation 13(1)) exception to disclosure in the EIR. The complaint to the Commissioner is two-fold. Firstly, the complainant considers that Defra holds additional records that have not been identified and provided. Secondly, the complainant has disputed Defra’s reliance on regulation 13(1) to withhold the names of Defra’s officials listed in the correspondence that has been supplied. The Commissioner has decided on the balance of probabilities that Defra does not hold any further information caught by the scope of the request and that regulation 1
Exemptions cited: EIR 13(1); EIR 5
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has made a request to Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council (“the Council”) for two documents referenced in the 2014-2015 annual report of the Doncaster Safeguarding Children Board (“the Board”). The Council responded that it did not hold the information for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act (“the Act”). The complainant disputed the Council’s position. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold the information for the purposes of the Act. He does not require any steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Doncaster Council
25 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Southwark (“the Council”) for a copy of leaseholder application forms for loan/charging orders in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2010 - 2015. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council does not hold a copy of leaseholder application forms for the charging orders in respect of debts for major works/service charge used between 2010 - 2015. The Commissioner requires the Council to take no steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 1
View Southwark Council
21 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested information relating to a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) confirmed it held the requested information but refused to provide it citing sections 27(1) and 27(2) of the FOIA (international relations). The Commissioner’s decision is that the information is exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 27(1)(a) of the FOIA and that in all the circumstances of the case the public interest favours maintaining the exemption. The Commissioner did not proceed to consider the MoJ’s application of section 27(2) to the same information. The Commissioner does not require the MoJ to take any steps as a result of this decision.
Exemptions cited: FOI 27
View Ministry of Justice
21 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant requested previously unpublished content from the report “The Yorkshire Ripper Case: Review of the Police Investigation of the Case”. The Home Office refused to disclose this information and cited the exemptions provided by the following sections of the FOIA: 31(1)(a) (prejudice to the prevention or detection of crime), 31(1)(b) (prejudice to the apprehension or prosecution of offenders), 31(1)(c) (prejudice to the administration of justice), 38(1) (endangerment to health and safety) and 40(2) (personal information). The Commissioner’s decision is that sections 31(1)(a), (b) and (c) were cited correctly in relation to some of the content, but that other parts of the content should be disclosed. The Commissioner also finds that sections 38(1) and 40(2) were cited correctly in relation to some limited parts of the content. The Home Office is now required to disclose the withheld information, minus the content which he has found exempt.
Exemptions cited: FOI 31; FOI 38; FOI 40
View Home Office
21 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant submitted a request to the public authority for the email addresses of mail handling sites, benefit centres and contact centres. The public authority explained that no email addresses are used for its mail handling sites and therefore it did not hold information relevant to that part of the request. It further explained that there were no generic email addresses specifically for benefit and contact centres but that it held individual email addresses of staff within these centres which it considered exempt from disclosure on the basis of section 36(2)(c) FOIA. The Commissioner has concluded on the balance of probabilities that the public authority does not hold email addresses for mail handling sites. He has further concluded that the public authority was entitled to withhold individual email addresses of staff within the benefit and contact centres in reliance on the exemption at section 36(2)(c). No steps are required. Information Tribunal appeal EA/2016/0194 dismisse
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Department for Work and Pensions
20 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Environmental Information Regulations 2004
The complainant requested information about costs associated with works undertaken on particular train stations and on the wider West Coast Main Line. Network Rail initially applied regulation 12(4)(b) to the request (manifestly unreasonable request). Network Rail subsequently identified information that it holds that it was able to release and which the complainant confirmed would satisfy his request. Network Rail withdrew its reliance on regulation 12(4)(b). The Commissioner has decided that Network Rail breached regulation 5(2) of the EIR as it did not provide the complainant with the relevant information that it holds within 20 working days. He does not require Network Rail to take any steps.
Exemptions cited: EIR 5(2)
View Network Rail
20 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information about Swift Group trading as Swift Advances Plc. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) says that it is not obliged to comply with the request under section 12(1) of the FOIA (cost/time exceeds appropriate limit). It says that section 31(1)(g) (law enforcement); section 43(2) (commercial interests) and section 44(1)(a) (prohibition on disclosure) would also be likely to apply to the request. The Commissioner’s decision is that the FCA has correctly applied section 12(1) to the request because the cost of complying with it exceeds the appropriate limit. The Commissioner considers that, as far as it was possible given the scope of the request, the FCA complied with its duty under section 16 of the FOIA to offer advice and assistance.
Exemptions cited: FOI 12
View Financial Conduct Authority
20 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to the re-accreditation of the Society of Homeopaths to the Accredited Register. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Professional Standards Authority (PSA) has correctly applied section 36(2) to the withheld information. The Commissioner does not require the public authority to take any steps as a result of this decision notice.
Exemptions cited: FOI 36
View Professional Standards Authority for Health and Social Care
20 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information relating to meetings between the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland (“CCNI”) and the Board of Lough Neagh Rescue. The Commissioner’s decision is that the CCNI has correctly applied section 14(1) of the FOIA to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires no steps to be taken.
Exemptions cited: FOI 14
View Equality Commission for Northern Ireland
20 Jul 2016Complaint not upheld (refusal valid)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested seven Iraq related documents dating from the year prior to the Iraq war in March 2003. The Cabinet Office refused to disclose the majority of the requested information in reliance on section 22 (information intended for future publication). The remainder of the (non-section 22) information was withheld under sections 27(1)(international relations), 23(1)(information supplied by, or relating to, bodies dealing with security matters) and section 24(1)(national security). The Commissioner’s decision is that the Cabinet Office was entitled to rely on all the maintained exemptions to refuse the request. The Commissioner does not require the Cabinet Office to take any further steps.
Exemptions cited: FOI 22; FOI 23; FOI 24; FOI 27
View Cabinet Office
19 Jul 2016Complaint upheld (body must disclose)Freedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested information from the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (the “Council”) relating to personal data which may have been lost or stolen and what financial training has the youth service managers received. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Council did not deal with the request for information in accordance with section 10 of the FOIA in the following way: It failed to provide a response to the request within that statutory time frame of 20 working days. The Commissioner requires the Council to issue a response under the FOIA.
Exemptions cited: FOI 10
View London Borough of Tower Hamlets
18 Jul 2016Complaint partially upheldFreedom of Information Act 2000
The complainant has requested the contract for the appointment of a strategic business partner for pathology services, together with information on the selection process and any revisions made to the contract. The Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (the Trust) provided information regarding the selection process but withheld the contract and any revisions to it, under the exemptions provided by section 43(1) – trade secrets, and 43(2) – prejudice to commercial interests. The Commissioner’s decision is that the Trust has failed to demonstrate that any of the withheld information constitutes a trade secret and therefore the Commissioner finds section 43(1) does not apply. Although some of the withheld information attracts the exemption provided by section 43(2), a very significant proportion of it does not. However, a limited amount of the remaining information is third party personal data which can be withheld under section 40(2). The Commissioner requires the public a
Exemptions cited: FOI 40; FOI 43
View Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust